The 'it's out there' beat: This time, restraint defeats rumor

Ombudsman

By Paul McMasters
First Amendment Ombudsman
First Amendment Center
pmcmasters@freedomforum.org

01.11.99

Printer-friendly page

The good news is that the American mainstream press thus far has shown admirable restraint in not making public the latest, apparently unfounded, rumor about alleged pre-presidential sex-capades.

The predictable news is that many major news organizations were hot on the chase — just in case.

In his latest report, Matt Drudge douses his earlier report about a particularly salacious story a U.S. tabloid was pursuing. A convenience of Internet gossip-mongering, of course, is that it allows you to report your rumor and to refute it, too, all within a matter of days or hours.

That "convenience" is problematic enough for an Internet columnist but when it infects the reporting of the mainstream press, the impact on credibility is inevitable.

Despite that inevitability, however, rumors — often identified by the presence of the words "alleged" or "anonymous sources said" in the same paragraph — have been a fixture of the reporting on the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal.

It's been a year now since that story broke, and since then, the media have published or broadcast dozens of rumors and rumors of rumors, most of which no one bothered to confirm or retract. They just flashed across the media firmament as momentary diversions, then faded.

True, there was a great deal more responsible journalism in the coverage than the press generally is given credit for, and the basic story has held up remarkably well. What few journalists are comfortable discussing, however, is that too many stories were thinly sourced at the time they were reported, too many were based on the reporting of others, and too many were incremental developments masquerading as breakthroughs.

That's precisely what readers and viewers want to discuss, though. They may seek out the tabloids for gossip and garbage, but they expect more from their daily newspapers and newscasts.

So how does so much garbage wind up in the mainstream press?

Typically its presence is justified by the refrain from nearly every newsroom in the country: "We have to report it because It's Out There." "It's Out There" means that someone somewhere has proffered an allegation.

Often that allegation originates with individuals or groups with a personal, political or pecuniary agenda who peddle their "stories" to someone in the world of media bottom feeders — the British or American tabloids or an Internet Web site or gossip columnist.

Once uttered, however, the allegation quickly gains the status of a story. It is "out there," and once "out there," it is red meat for the mainstream press. Rather than ignoring it or at least confirming it or refuting it, the impulse too often is to pass it on. If someone is talking about it, then everyone must be apprised.

The newsroom debate over whether to give it credence by publishing or broadcasting typically looks less like journalistic reasoning (or even competitive rationalizing) than it does an ethical roundelay.

The unspoken rule in too many newsrooms has become: "When dealing with trash, don't be first but for heaven's sake don't be left out." The corollary: "If you don't have the resources to report the story yourself, go ahead and report what others are reporting — or are about to report."

Thus, many reporters and correspondents have decided that as long as a nose for news is defined as being able to sniff out the landfill, they will patrol the 'out there' beat and they will be rewarded with bylines on the front page or face time on the 6 o'clock news.

As long as the press is captive to the 'out there' beat, the rest of us will have to sort through the trash to get our dose of daily news. That is unlikely to change until the media bosses have the courage to concede that readers and ratings don't add up to credibility, and that without credibility those circulation and ratings figures can be mighty fickle measures of importance and impact.

In fact, having the numbers is a lot like having a sexy reputation in school: You may be talked about but you won't get asked to the prom — or introduced to family and friends.

It's awfully difficult to hold onto our esteem for the press when the press itself is trying to wrest it from us. The fact that many in the media have exercised restraint in the face of this latest rumor is a happy indicator that some at least may be getting that message.

Paul McMasters may be contacted at pmcmasters@freedomforum.org.

Recent Ombudsman columns

• Is the press guilty of treason?
  Many regard robust exercise of First Amendment rights by either the press or the people as a dangerous problem in the fight against terrorism.08.08.02

• The Supreme Court's 'secondary' thoughts
  While Alameda Books ruling appears to bolster efforts to regulate adult businesses, several justices express concern that evolving secondary-effects doctrine threatens First Amendment.07.30.02

• Putting corporate security before national security
  Government is asking private citizens to take on more responsibilities, but is considering bribing private businesses to enlist in war on terrorism.07.22.02

• Congress must champion access
  Government information must be branded as crucial to democracy, to responsible governance and to freedom.07.11.02

• Denial of access shushes the democratic dialogue
  Some restrictions are warranted to guard against attack, but as government demands more information of Americans, it's asking Americans to demand less information from government.12.12.01

Browse more Ombudsman columns